2015
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Frequency-dependent fitness in gynodioeciousLobelia siphilitica

Abstract: Selection is frequency dependent when an individual's fitness depends on the frequency of its phenotype. Frequency-dependent selection should be common in gynodioecious plants, where individuals are female or hermaphroditic; if the fitness of females is limited by the availability of pollen to fertilize their ovules, then they should have higher fitness when rare than when common. To test whether the fitness of females is frequency dependent, we manipulated the sex ratio in arrays of gynodioecious Lobelia siph… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…; Rivkin et al. ), this is the first example of a frequency‐dependent trait driving differential exposure to natural enemies. Moreover, we would predict stronger frequency dependence in disease exposure than pollen limitation in this system, because it is the rate of pollination rather than the eventual outcome that drives closing response.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…; Rivkin et al. ), this is the first example of a frequency‐dependent trait driving differential exposure to natural enemies. Moreover, we would predict stronger frequency dependence in disease exposure than pollen limitation in this system, because it is the rate of pollination rather than the eventual outcome that drives closing response.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Female flowers closed rapidly in arrays where they were rare, and stayed open longer in arrays where they were common. Although negative frequency-dependent selection for females is predicted (Maurice and Fleming 1995;McCauley and Taylor 1997) and has been empirically demonstrated in the context of pollen limitation (McCauley and Brock 1998;De Cauwer et al 2010;Rivkin et al 2015), this is the first example of a frequency-dependent trait driving differential exposure to natural enemies. Moreover, we would predict stronger frequency dependence in disease exposure than pollen limitation in this system, because it is the rate of pollination rather than the eventual outcome that drives closing response.…”
Section: Floral Traits Affecting Disease Exposurementioning
confidence: 91%
“…Although present in only 5‐6% of angiosperm species (Renner and Ricklefs, ; Charlesworth, ), the evolution of separate sexes is a recurring transition in angiosperms (Geber et al., ; Charlesworth, ; Renner, ). The occurrence of two mating types in populations, for example, females and males in dioecious populations or females and hermaphrodites in gynodioecious populations, has direct effects on patterns of mating as well as important emergent consequences such as the evolution of sexual dimorphism (Barrett and Hough, ; Kamath et al., ) and sex ratio evolution (McCauley and Taylor, ; Van Etten and Chang, ; Rivkin et al., ). A common pathway to separate sexes is the origin and spread of male‐sterility in otherwise hermaphroditic populations (i.e., gynodioecy; Webb, ; Spigler and Ashman, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The importance of spatial scale may be more severe in plants than in animals because the ability of plants to respond to selective interference through behavioral modification is likely limited to shifts in phenology (e.g., Rivkin et al. ; Weis et al. ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the scale of interaction reduces, as expected under local competition with neighboring individuals or short range movements of pollinators, we expect greater opportunity to arise as individual plants experience variable contexts. The importance of spatial scale may be more severe in plants than in animals because the ability of plants to respond to selective interference through behavioral modification is likely limited to shifts in phenology (e.g., Rivkin et al 2015;Weis et al 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%